Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Triddle

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Triddle

[edit]

Final (19/2/2) ending 15:56 17 July 2005 (UTC) This is a self nomination. I was previously left a message offering me a nomination. I turned it down at the time because I did not have the need but now I do. Triddle 15:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do hereby formally accept the nomination for adminship. Triddle 16:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. I support although I would like to see more wiki-interaction. Visiting the COTW or TWID would be nice but of course it isn't a requirement. You have a good amount of edits, and we need more admins good a clean-up. Falphin 00:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I think the User:Triddle/stubsensor project is a wothwhile intitiative and has been conducted with respect for other editors by using humans to edit articles detected by the scripts and encouraging collaboration to improve the wikipedia.--AYArktos 00:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. There are many ways to contribute significantly to Wikipedia besides authoring articles, and in only five months, I see quite significant contributions by Triddle, including a slew of images, and his creation of the WikiProject help desk which demonstrates his constructive and helpful attitude. Admin privileges would allow him be an even greater asset to the project. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Hey! I would have nominated you. To some extent, I think good, diligent cleanup work is more admin-worthy than any amount of prose. Otherwise, what good are the tools? But maybe that's just because I'm self-conscious about my own prose. Triddle will use his admin powers wisely. --Dmcdevit 01:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Good contributor. Grace Note 01:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Great image contributions, I've found them very useful. -Lommer | talk 05:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Good article contributions and stubsensor is very useful. David | Talk 17:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Does good work, and I see no evidence that he would misuse admin rights. -- JamesTeterenko 04:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. JuntungWu 05:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support whole-heartedly. A good back-room admin that does some front-of-house stuff is just as valuable to the project as a prolific article editor who does the occasional bit of cleanup.
  11. Support User shows good evidence of trustworthiness, this is all that is needed for my support. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 23:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. I have some experience with Triddle, and as far as I am concerned, he is a polite and pondered editor. His project is also a very good initiative. I believe he would make a mighty good admin. --Sn0wflake 02:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support (no qualification). David Remahl 06:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Does very good work, great addition. Rx StrangeLove 22:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Andre (talk) 01:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, agree with all of above. Bluemoose 13:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No trouble with Triddle. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Obviously I'm not a tribble then. :-) Triddle 07:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support - appears to know policy, no evidence he would go on a vandalism spree once promoted. Guettarda 13:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Excellent contributor to cleaning up wikipedia, which is imo the main sole of admins. Hates invalid stub notices => axiomatically good person. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Although there are a large number of cleanup edits, there are very few, if any, substantial article contributions. It is thus impossible to judge the potential behaviour of this editor when it came to conflicts, and thus there is insufficient information to determine whether they are trustworthy. I am not keen on the balance of editing according to Kate's tool either. ~~~~ 20:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to see how I work with other editors why not look at the history of Bong and Edwards Air Force Base. Both times I took smaller articles and significant expanded the prose. Subsequently others came along and edited them. My overall attitude is that I am here to make Wikipedia better and we all need to work together. If you would like to see the most stressful point in my modern wikicareer (post april-fools joke) then check out User:Triddle/stubsensor/20050623#Object-Relational_Impedance_Mismatch. Its a no brainer: people who get worked up, engage in edit wars, etc, are too involved for their own good. Life is too short to get angry at someone on Wikipedia. With the number of eyeballs here anyone who is hitting their boiling point should simply ignore the article, process, politics, what ever, until they can get their cool again. Would you wait indefinitely for me not to explode on someone? Triddle 22:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC) I also forgot to mention the Controlled Impact Demonstration which was compiled from NASA text but copyedited by me. Not only is it fascinating, it also lead to a featured picture. Triddle 23:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote is unfortunate; a quick look at this contributor's user page shows that they have considerable problems with Wikipedia: Do not leave a msg, Messages are no longer being accepted at this time and will be deleted on receipt, Also no response will be given to any msg left on this page for this user. This undermines the ideals at the core of Wikipedia. Additionally in the history is this quote: I hope in the end this project will be show to be the failure and sham that it is, due to the activites of it's adminstration. STOP LYING ADBUSIVE ADMINS, QUESTION AUTHORITY. I am going to go out on a limb and say this vote is not in good faith. Triddle 23:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Even more unfortunately this contributor's personal page is constantly being vandalized and they have performed many edits since I left my note. The first quote can be seen here. I sincerely hope that the removal of the content from the contributor's user page indicates they are willing to become a member of this community, with communication and all. Triddle 00:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    I would not worry; any bureaucrat worth a whit of sense would blanket-ignore Boothy's votes. --Golbez 00:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral at the moment. As User:-Ril- says, there is little interaction in the WP: and talk: spaces to judge a potential admin by. There is some evidence of good contribution to articles (though golden prose is not really a requirement, here, IMHO) however, so he at least seems not to inflame people on the spot. Also, his talk page reveals that he messed up the self-nom (wrong section) which does seem to bely unfamiliarity with an important part of WP procedure. All that said, his work on the project he mentions is clearly significant — hence my neutrality-Splash 22:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I may not be perfect (and I certainly am opportune to doing boneheaded maneuvers at the worst possible time) but I'm thorough. The secret is I've screwed up lots of stuff around here but I've also gone back and fixed everything I could remember. If I accidently break something it doesn't take long before I notice... this particular case was fixed in minutes, before I could notice. Triddle 22:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. You need I would like to see nine months of contributions out of potential admins. You have only five. Denelson83 18:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - where is this 9 month requirement stated? At Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming_an_administrator it only states that "is recommended that you write for Wikipedia for a while before requesting administrator status"--AYArktos 21:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not WP policy, it is this user's personal policy. Users are entitled to support or oppose RfAs on whatever basis they choose. -Splash 23:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have no real problem with Denelson's criterion (not that I agree at all), I do find his phrasing troublesome. "You need nine months" really sounds like it's a policy, not his personal opinion on the matter. In the future I hope he will make it more clear it is just his opinion. -R. fiend 03:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to address this concern. Remember, I don't know any of these potential admins on a social basis per se, so this is one of the only merits I can go by when casting my vote. Denelson83 09:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and thank you for addressing my concern. I don't know most potential admins either, which is why I think I've only cast three votes ever. -R. fiend 16:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that this vote is inconsistent with other concurrent votes by the same user but cites the exact same reason, examples: Bluemoose and Essjay. Denelson, in light of your other votes, I would appreciate it if you moved your vote to neutral here as well. Personally I believe that writing multiple programs that enabled other contributors to make a substantial number of edits (seat of my pants estimate: nearly 1,000 spread across the 3 Stubsensor cleanup projects alone, not to mention two double redirects with each list being over 1,000 problems long, and one most wanted stubs) should be considered. Triddle 21:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    I have to say that I pesonally view the incessant challenging of oppose votes on RfA as very poor form. If this is how you plan to interact with other users, then the concerns of my presently neutral vote are clearly warranted. -Splash 23:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You may of course vote in any way you like, however I'm extremely good at picking out inconsistencies. I had a feeling that I had simply been overlooked by Denelson in this case and felt the need to direct some attention at that. If you disagree with my decision to point out a vote cast by a person who appears to be completely anti-authority and retaliatory against admins then I don't know what to say. In the case of -Ril-'s vote I felt compelled to negate his assertion that there are very few, if any, substantial article contributions. This may be voting about me but I do believe that I am still qualified to present factual information for people to base their opinions on and counter incorrect information. Triddle 00:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    I was only really referring to your challenge to the votes other than Boothy443's. You are of course entitled to defend yourself against criticism, and it may well be necessary in the particular circumstances of RfA (I imagine I would wish to point out inaccuracies if I were being opposed, too). Seeing as how Denelson83 has changed his vote in response to your comment, I think you were not "in poor form" as I suggested. But as a principle, I don't like it anyway, and was pleased to see the comment at the top of Essjay's RfA. Still, I was too harsh on you, and I'm sorry for that. -Splash 01:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Okie doke. Since you raised that point, I shall change my vote to neutral. And from now on, if any of a potential admin's edits include something that goes above and beyond how an average contributor would behave, I will not oppose that user's candidacy. However, I will keep my personal nine-month requirement for a support vote intact. Denelson83 23:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much =) Please see my comments above if you felt I was being retaliatory at you for simply voting against me. Triddle 00:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


Comments

  • 3653 edits, 1970 on articlespace. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole Kate's tool result. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed his 'Vote here' link. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... What will it say about us if we make Voldemort an admin? --Dmcdevit 01:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to make an observation about using edit counts to judge the worthiness of an admin. First, if I had decided to put the Stubsensor cleanup projects in the Wikipedia:WikiProject namespace I believe the outlook would be very different. I'm going to go out on a limb and even say that most people would look at the tool and go wow thats a lot of cooperation. You may of course judge the worthiness of that statement for yourself but I believe that is how the numbers would be interpreted. Now here is my observation about using edit counts as a method to judge users: it is dangerous, overall, because it will work, most of the time; the other time it becomes a method by which all must conform. Why did I start the Stubsensor cleanup project in my personal area? Because I am a software professional, I adhere to the principles of least privileged by habit, and that is what makes the most sense to me. However in my cleanup projects I encouraged others to submit changes to the project, especially when it came to ironing out conflicts with the removal of the stub tag. In fact in the first projects I encouraged every editor, whether they disagreed at all, to change the criteria. In the latter projects some better prose had developed and changes were still welcome but was focused more towards discussion rather than update; this was only to keep consistency. A very similar argument can be made about arbitrary time constraints.
    • I presume that was directed at me and the other oppose. If you had put the stubsensor in the Wikipedia space I hope I would have seen, by looking through your contributions history (which I did, because "editcountitis can be fatal") that most of them would have come from a single source (or similar) and taking a look at a few diffs would soon have shown me what was happening. There is still the lack of Talk: space interaction too, and you wouldn't have put stubsensor there! Nevertheless, it seems that you are likely to be promoted at the moment, and I wish you all the best should that happen. In fact, I'm keeping an eye on this RfA as I waver about changing to support. -Splash 03:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I have two sub-questions to this one. The first is how would I use the sysop privilege in day to day activities? I would use the privilege to take care of problems as I see them when reading the Wikipedia. I currently do this anyway but just provide tags for someone else to do the privileged work. The second question is how do I plan to use this privilege? I have created a new WikiProject titled WikiProject help desk which is now the information help desk for the Wikipedia community. To collaborate effectively the project members will need to distribute and catalog source code that acted as solutions for previous problems. I would like to make only the source code protected from edits because of its sensitive nature (vandalism here could cost someone all the files on their computer before anyone who was knowledgeable could revert it).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Definitely there are many contributions I am pleased with. The most high profile one is the previously mentioned WikiProject help desk. I am also quite pleased with my photographs, images I have discovered, and Stubsensor cleanup projects. Articles that I am particularly fond of include Edwards Air Force Base and its image gallery, the X-plane image gallery, Dryden Flight Research Center, Controlled Impact Demonstration, Welding power supply, and finally Bong.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Yes I have. One of my very first contributions to Wikipedia was an April Fool's joke page (archived at Uncyclopedia now). Unfortunately at the time I was ignorant of most policies and have since realized I should not of done that. On that day an admin removed the article from the main name space and left a message for me. I did not agree with the admin's decision and pursued discussion with him. His responses were not favorable and inconsistent and I perceived this as him exceeding his authority. I dealt with the situation by researching various policies, asking the admin to justify his actions with policy, and finally preparing a case for the dispute resolution purpose. During that process I discovered exactly how I was wrong. There is a complete archive of this at User_talk:Triddle/M1126A_Fryker. Also my cleanup projects often stir up some controversy. I try to solve these problems by educating, researching, and communicating effectively, while being bold. You can see examples here.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Triddle&oldid=1138652668"